Recommended Posts

Spaghetti Cat
3,288

Spaghetti Cat
3,288

On July 6 President Mediev and President Obama signed an agreement to "reduce their strategic warheads to a range of 1500-1675, and their strategic delivery vehicles to a range of 500-1100.”

But this may not be as dramatic a reduction as it looks.

Compared with the forces deployed as of 2009, the effect of the START follow-on appears to be a reduction of Russian deployed strategic warheads by approximately 40 percent, and a U.S. reduction of roughly 24 percent. The estimated effect on the total stockpile of either country is more modest: 14 percent fewer warheads for Russia and 10 percent for the United States. But that assumes the warheads cut by the START follow-on treaty would be retired rather than placed in the reserve, something the agreement does not require. The treaty itself requires no change in the size of the total stockpiles.

The reduction to 500-1,100 strategic delivery vehicles represents a significant reduction from the START ceiling of 1,600, at least on paper. In reality, however, the upper limit exceeds what either country currently deploys, and the lower level exceeds what Russia is expected to deploy by 2017 anyway. Therefore, a 500-1,100 limit doesn’t force either country to make changes to its nuclear structure but essentially follows current deployment plans.

Basically a few less warheads will be on hair-trigger alert, but they can still held in reserve. That will still be more than enough to blow us all to kingdom come. Good on them for reducing the numbers, but I still think that's way to many.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

shaboobala
0

shaboobala
0

On the above note, the USA has no right to have any sort of missile base in Europe unless it has a patch of USA land in Europe, and even then, it would be a move that screames "I am superior, I can have a missile base wherever the f*ck I want".

In my opinion it makes complete sense the nuke reduction and missile base are connected, so following the idea. Russia disarms a fair ammount of nukes, and the USA builds a missile attack system right on their borders.

Not really much of a good sounding proposal, "you, disarm your nukes, we'll build a missile base accorss the road". What gives America the right to build and a missile base in Europe, I don't reckon Russia would be allowed to build one in Mexico under any circumstances.

The might sound very pro Russia, but I try to see things from a neutral view. And in my opinion America gets away with a hell of alot of sh*t that other countries wouldn't.

The USA isn't the deciding factor here. This is a Czech/Polish decision. And if Czech R./Poland say yes, then the US is perfectly justified in building the shield. So, if Poland -for example- wants to build a defensive shield on her own damn soil, that is up to Poland.

It's funny cause, the only thing the shield could actually do to Russia... is defend(and ineffectually, at that) against a Russian offensive into Poland. Yea, gee you never really thought about how Poland must feel in this whole situation eh? It's a country which has profoundly struggled to maintain it's precarious independence in the center of Europe for centuries, with the unforgiving specter of Russian foreign policy constantly looming to the East. And I don't doubt that within the Russian government there are still many lingering notions regarding Poland, Central Europe and the concept of a "buffer zone".

And then you have Kaliningrad, basically sitting right on Poland's head, and it is the most heavily militarized place in Europe. So like, Russia is sitting on Poland with this giant fort, full of offensive missiles, tanks and infantry(along with a very extensive history of "unpleasantness" with Poland)... and you're talking about US double standards?? What about Russian double standards?

Think about Poland for once, poor ol' Poland. They have as much of a right to defense and deterrent as any other sovereign nation. Whether that includes a deal with another country is none of Russia's business. What Russia thinks is simply of no consequence, and they obviously still have sour grapes over the whole "solidarity" thing. They like to have a nice, passive neighbor which can be taken over whenever it's convenient. Ripping those last vestiges of Russian dependence and servility from Central Europe will no doubt be unsettling for Russia, but it is necessary.